4 ms·
Why do that when safely storing the waste takes up an incredibly tiny amount of space and costs much less? And subsidizing this still won't make new nuclear pa
by Matticus_Rex 1y ago
Why do that when safely storing the waste takes up an incredibly tiny amount of space and costs much less?
And subsidizing this still won't make new nuclear particularly competitive without ditching the silly LNT harm model and killing ALARA at the regulatory level. If you do that, suddenly nuclear can be profitable (as it should be in a world where the AEC and NRC approached radiation harm risk with actual science).
- pstuart 1y agoApparently nuclear waste storage is easier said than done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
- Matticus_Rex 1y agoPolitically, yes. Anything nuclear is easier said than done for political reasons.
- pstuart 1y agoI'd like to see nuclear be (safely) viable, which to me means SMRs or go home. Even SMRs can't compete on price along - current estimate (per the Goog): SMRs: SMR LCOE range from $80-$90/MWh. Renewables: Solar and wind LCOE can range from $20-$50/MWh, with some estimates even lower. Yes, having "guaranteed" output has value, but I'm of an age where I can remember the promise of "power too cheap to meter"
- Matticus_Rex 1y agoThose cost estimates factor in ALARA and the LNT model assumptions, which drastically raise costs far beyond what's needed for safety. If the NRC dropped those and moved to a SNT dose-harm model, that drops costs radically.